Literature DB >> 19715635

Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future.

Jordan J Louviere1, Emily Lancsar.   

Abstract

Compared to many applied areas of economics, health economics has a strong tradition in eliciting and using stated preferences (SP) in policy analysis. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are one SP method increasingly used in this area. Literature on DCEs in health and more generally has grown rapidly since the mid-1990s. Applications of DCEs in health have come a long way, but to date few have been 'best practice', in part because 'best practice' has been somewhat of a moving target. The purpose of this paper is to briefly survey the history of DCEs and the state of current knowledge, identify and discuss knowledge gaps, and suggest potentially fruitful areas for future research to fill such gaps with the aim of moving the application of DCEs in health economics closer to best practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19715635     DOI: 10.1017/S1744133109990193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ Policy Law        ISSN: 1744-1331


  61 in total

1.  Policy interventions that attract nurses to rural areas: a multicountry discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  D Blaauw; E Erasmus; N Pagaiya; V Tangcharoensathein; K Mullei; S Mudhune; C Goodman; M English; M Lagarde
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.408

2.  A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskyte; Natalie King; Naila Dracup; Jeremy Chataway; Helen L Ford; Joachim Marti; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Uwe Junker; Christin Juhnke; Edgar Stemmler; Thomas Kohlmann; Friedhelm Leverkus; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-06-21

4.  A closer look at decision and analyst error by including nonlinearities in discrete choice models: implications on willingness-to-pay estimates derived from discrete choice data in healthcare.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; John M Rose; Michiel C J Bliemer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Including Opt-Out Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues to Consider.

Authors:  Danny Campbell; Seda Erdem
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  The better than dead method: feasibility and interpretation of a valuation study.

Authors:  R A van Hoorn; A R T Donders; M Oppe; P F M Stalmeier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Joffre Swait
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment.

Authors:  Marjan J M Hummel; Fabian Volz; Jeannette G van Manen; Marion Danner; Charalabos-Markos Dintsios; Maarten J Ijzerman; Andreas Gerber
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Bryce B Reeve; Paul M Brown; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Joseph Lipscomb; A Simon Pickard; Dennis A Revicki
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.725

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.